You have a point there, but the RX-8 revs to what?--9,000 RPM? With 9,000 RPM one can do wonders with low torque. But, still, you may be totally correct. On the other hand, I know that the legendary 93-95 RX-7 would give nothing up because of lack of torque on any track.

 

That 50-70mph must be 6th in the M3 and kickdown thro' gears in 535d.
Having owned both, I struggle with then both getting the same lap times with the same conditions, same driver & level of commitment - I guess the flaw in in one of more of those.

 

That 50-70mph must be 6th in the M3 and kickdown thro' gears in 535d.
Having owned both, I struggle with then both getting the same lap times with the same conditions, same driver & level of commitment - I guess the flaw in in one of more of those.
[/quote]

Never driven an M3 but I know that 0 - 100mph in 11.5 seconds is bloody fast.
I can't really understand why the 535 posted the same time as the M3 but if you have driven both then you should know the truth and it sounds like theres been some sort of mistake.

However if the time for the 535d is correct then I'm amazed at some of the cars further down the list such as Lotus, Aston Martin etc.

 

Some o0ther factors must of been playin, as weather temperature, etc for example how a volswage can make the same time of an SL55 mercedes

Mercedes SL 55 AMG - 1.33.2
Volkswagen Golf R32 - 1.33.2

 

Thanks much. I just looked. And, the Lotus Elise is just 135.6. I'll have to check the site out more closely later and see who drives, etc. At first glance, you can't tell anything about the cars. Chevrolet Corvette?

 

The reason why the M3 and 535d have the same lap time is because the M3 was driven by the old Black Stig and the 535d was driven by the new White Stig.

The White Stig is reportedly a variety of racing drivers but each one always drives A LOT more aggresively than the Black Stig, who was Perry McCarthy.

 

It could be that the torque through 50-70 is where the car spends most of its time on the track so the 535 has an extra bit of speed in this area but only this area so keeps up with the M3 time wise. If the entire track was between 50 - 70mph corners then the 535d would be faster surely?

or is there a flaw in my logic

oh and RIP Black stig

your launch off an aircraft carrier was a noble way to go :-(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/downloads/rip...g_broadband.ram

 

Keeping the M3 up in the rev band would more than make up for the torque differences, I suspect it's just down to driver and track conditions. On the day anything and anyone can beat anything and anyone, as an example take a look at Sheb's post on another thread about the Maserati Quattroporte recording a time that equalled or beat the E60 M5 around one magazine's test track.

 

Keeping the M3 up in the rev band would more than make up for the torque differences, I suspect it's just down to driver and track conditions. On the day anything and anyone can beat anything and anyone, as an example take a look at Sheb's post on another thread about the Maserati Quattroporte recording a time that equalled or beat the E60 M5 around one magazine's test track.
[/quote]
Oh come on...please don't revive that post again...nothing creative is achived in that dbate.
IMO, as i am a tg fan, it could be as jet190rs said, the change in drivers. Otherwise i can't see the difference. For sure the M3 could make out the torque difference by just keeping the rev band. Dunno...i for one think so, that the change (if they changed) of drivers.
Bare in mind that the lap times on their site are not stated with dry/wet lap. I think that's why we see the same time for the sl55 with the golf r32. If i remember corectly the sl test was in wet and for sure the golf's one was in dry.

 

I agree that the times of many of the cars seem strange. Look at the time of the M3 CSL (1.28) vs. the standard M3 (1.31.8). Thats a very big difference.